2000-05-25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 25, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
JOHN STROUGH
ALAN ABBOTT
ANTHONY METIVIER
MEMBERS ABSENT
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD
ROBERT PALING
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MRS. MOORE-Under Old Business, do you want me to table Prospect Child and Family Center?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s fine.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Do you want to do that?
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER
OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: SFR-1A
LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE
SCHOOL’S FACILITIES. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A 2,740 SQ. FT. ADDITION
TO THE “MAIN CENTER” AND A 8,100 SQ. FT. TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE
“SCHOOL” BUILDING. THE ADDITIONS WILL BE USED FOR A LUNCH ROOM,
CONFERENCE CENTER, OFFICE SPACE AND OTHER SCHOOL NEEDS. SITE
IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS AND SIDEWALKS.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 4-93 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1, 82-3-
2, 82-2-6 LOT SIZE: 3.01 AC., 1.44 AC., 1.90 AC. SECTION: 179-20
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for everybody, there’s a letter from Jon Lapper requesting to table this
because they need to pursue a variance from the ZBA. So we’ll leave the public hearing open on that
application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 35-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED BAY RIDGE VOL. FIRE CO., INC. AS
CONTRACT VENDEE AND AGENT FOR WARREN CO. OWNER: COUNTY OF
WARREN AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION:
BAY & OLD BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,845 SQ.
FT. BUILDING FOR THE BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INC. SITE WORK
INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, THREE CURB CUTS, AND PAVED SURFACES. NEW
USES IN RR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 41-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/8/00 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 5/10/00 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-15 LOT SIZE: 4.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-
15
JON LAPPER, RICHARD JONES, CHIP MELLON, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-2000, Bay Ridge Vol. Fire Co., Inc., Meeting Date: May 25, 2000
“Staff Notes:
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
The applicant proposes to construct a 15,845 square foot building for a Volunteer Fire Company.
The building is to be located on 4.3 acres along Bay Road. This is an allowed use that requires site
plan review as supported by letters from Chris Round, Zoning Administrator to Jon Lapper, Bartlett
Pontiff and Stewart and Rhodes, May 3, 2000 and May 15, 2000. The applicant has also applied for
an area variance requesting relief from the permeable area and the Travel Corridor Overlay zone
setback.” They have received that Area Variance.
“The following questions were utilized to review the application and determine compliance with the
Town Ordinance.
(1) The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings,
lighting and signs.
The Building is located between Bay Road and Old Bay Road. The main visitor entrance is
to the south of the building, and volunteers enter via bays or doors on the west and east side
of the building. Space has been designed for the size of the equipment and number of
volunteers. The design of the building is one story with architectural enhancements and is
similar to the existing fire house designs in the Town. The site is compatible with the
proposed building and any future building additions if needed. Illumination lighting levels
over the project site needs to be shown to determine adequacy and appropriateness of
lighting. All lighting should have cutoff fixtures, be directed downward, and have lexan
lenses. Manufacturer cut sheets should be provided for all light fixtures proposed. Bollard
height should be shown and discussed due to area weather conditions (these lights can be
hidden during the snow season). Although high pressure sodium lighting is recommended
for most development in Queensbury, in this instance metal halide may be preferred due to
better peripheral vision by drivers at lower light levels. This determination can be made
when illumination levels are presented. The plans do not provide a sign detail, but the
location does meet the required setbacks for the free standing signs.
(2) The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including
intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
According to a traffic engineer review the access drives proposed for visitors, emergency
vehicles, and volunteers is adequate for site distance for entering and existing vehicles. The
plans were reviewed by Creighton Manning for sight distances at the four proposed
curbcuts. The curbcuts on Bay Road were described to have adequate site distance. Staff
would request reasons for the number of curbcut requests. Traffic circulation may benefit
with the one curbcut on Bay Road for fire apparatus and one curbcut on Old Bay Road that
is graded for better site distance. The reduction in curbcuts may avoid conflicts with
volunteers and apparatus travel movements. Section 179-66(4) of the Town code requires
curb cuts to have a 150 foot separation distance from each other for a commercial/industrial
use, the Board may consider imposing the same restriction for the proposed use.
(3) The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and
loading.
The site plan identifies 58 parking spaces. The Town Code does not specifically address the
number of parking spaces required for a volunteer fire station. Staff would request
supporting information identifying the existing number of volunteers and an amount of
anticipated growth.
(4) The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway
structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
The site plan identifies sidewalk access to entrances of the building from parking areas. The
building and its location is not a pedestrian destination, so streetside walks are not needed.
(5) The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The site plan and stormwater report were provided to the Town engineering firm (CT Male)
for review and comment.
(6) The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The site was discussed during the Town Board January 24, 2000 financing review. The
agent for the applicant had indicated the site may need an additional well, one for truck
refilling and one for domestic use. The sewage disposal facility is designed for 64 people.
Staff would request supporting information as to the public use of the facility and
corresponding septic system support. As indicated in the January 24, 2000 Town Board
Minutes the meeting room capacity is for 99 people. The plans identify a 3,000 gallon water
storage tank underneath the eastern parking area; what is the purpose of the tank?
(7) The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings,
landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants
and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and
maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The site contains landscaping for screening and aesthetics. The plan does not identify if the
remaining area is to be a manicured lawn or an open meadow, Staff would request
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
clarification. The plans were approved by the Beautification Committee, with the condition
that plans be revised to show trees at 3 1/2 inch caliper.
(8) The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire
hydrants.
The building appears to have access on all four sides of the building and does not appear to
interfere with any emergency zones. The site location does not have access to a hydrant, but
the nearest dry hydrant is located on Pickle Hill Road.
(9) The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
The site does not appear to have areas susceptible to flooding or erosion. Staff would
request confirmation that the proposed site plan will not cause areas on the site to flood or
erode. The Town Board minutes indicate the water table runs 3-4 ft. high around the base
of the building; is the site able to support the structure as proposed? The applicant is to
appear before the ZBA 5/17/00 for relief from permeability requirements. Max. is 25%
impermeable total with 36.6% requested. There are ways to decrease this impermeable total.
The northernmost curb cut off of Bay Rd. could be eliminated (unless there is an emergency
management reason that can be explained). There is a drive through at the southernmost
curb cut off of Bay Rd. that connects to the Old Bay Rd. side of the building. This drive
could be eliminated and the parking area access lane increased in width from 20 ft. to 24 ft.
This would increase permeable area by at least 2,775 sq. ft. or 1.5%.
Staff would request the applicant address any engineering comments and Staff comments about the
site plan. The Board may table the application and request revised or new information be submitted
by May 31, 2000. (This is the deadline for applications for June of 2000.)”
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read any letters?
MR. MAC EWAN-You might just want to note the letter from C.T. Male.
MRS. MOORE-A letter from C.T. Male dated May 17, 2000. It’s addressed to Mr. Round. “We
have conducted a review of the drawings and reports submitted for the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire
Company by Richard E. Jones Associates. The project essentially consists of a new fire station and
associated parking lots. We reviewed the information submitted for general conformance with the
Town of Queensbury Zoning Law and the Site Plan Review Requirements. The following
documents were reviewed: 1. Site Plan Review Application, prepared April 26, 2000. 2. Copy of
Agreement between the County of Warren and the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. Dated
April 26, 2000. 3. Sight Distance Analysis, prepared by Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP, dated
February 24, 2000. 4. Storm Water Management Plan, prepared by Richard Jones Associates dated
April 26, 2000. 5. Architectural rendering of proposed fire house, prepared by Richard E. Jones, not
dated. 6. Site Plan drawings entitled “A New Facility for the: BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE
COMPANY” prepared by Richard E. Jones Associates, dated April 25, 2000. Drawings include
three sheets: Layout & Planting, Drainage & Utilities and Details. We offer the following
comments: 1. The Lighting Plan does not show candle foot contours or spillage. In addition, the
pole heights should be reviewed to determine if they meet Town standards? 2. It is not clear what
the island between the handicap spaces and the building is made of. Can a wheelchair cross or must
they go around? 3. The proposed grade is very steep at the southwest corner of the proposed
parking lot with no wall proposed. It appears that the grading plan could be revised to flatten out
this area. 4. The grading in the paved areas should be revised to direct runoff to the proposed
drywells. It appears that select drywells will be overloaded while others will receive little runoff. 5.
The drywells in the south parking lot are shown in cut areas. The soils information submitted does
not show the soil conditions at the elevation of the bottom of the drywell. 6. The test pit locations
should be added to the plans. 7. The septic system consists of a septic tank followed by seepage
pits. The 45 degree bend in the line feeding the septic tank should be eliminated. The NYSDOH
regulations require that a minimum of 4 feet of usable soil exists below the seepage pit. Additional
test pit data is needed to confirm compliance with this criteria. 8. A reserve area for the septic
system should be shown on the plans. 9. The northwestern most seepage pit is within 5 feet of a
retaining wall. The seepage pit should be moved further away from the wall to assure proper
dispersion of runoff collected. 10. The grading plan appears to indicate a culvert under Old Bay
Road at the easternmost portion of the project site. The plans do not clearly indicate the existing and
proposed function of this culvert. An underground electric line traverses this same area. 11. The
plans show a 3,000 gallon buried concrete cistern, located in the driveway. It is not clear what the
purpose of this tank is. If this tank is a backup to the well then provisions should be made to protect
this water from contamination. Details of the water system are lacking. 12. The well pump test
results shown on the plans indicate a yield of 9 gpm. It is not clear if this is a sustained yield or a
short term pumpage rate. 13. The plans show that the well is only 42 feet deep and the soils are
coarse sands. This type of system is highly susceptible to surface contamination. The location of
any/all septic systems (even on adjoining properties) within 200 feet of the well should be shown.
14. No erosion control plans were included. If you have any questions related to our comments, feel
free to call our office. Sincerely, C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. James R. Edwards, P.E. Project
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
Manager” I can indicate that there was a response from Dick Jones Associates, dated May 24, 2000,
and it addresses Staff comments and it addresses the C.T. Male comments, and we do not have C.T.
Male sign off as of yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The May 15 letter from Jon Lapper.
th
MRS. MOORE-You mean from Chris Round?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I’m sorry, to Jon Lapper, right.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is a May 15, 2000 letter addressed to Mr. Lapper. “Our office issued a
zoning determination regarding the proposed Bay Ridge Firehouse in correspondence dated May 3,
2000. The property in question is located within the RR-3A zone, not the WR-3A zone as indicated
in the determination. All other aspects of the determination show correct.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to read that letter in?
MRS. MOORE-May 3, 2000, addressed to Mr. Lapper. “We’ve received the site plan application for
the proposed Bay Ridge Firehouse to be located on Bay Road. The property is located in the WR-3A
zone. Firehouses are not identified on the listing of allowed uses in the WR-1A/WR-3A zones.
Firehouses are not identified as allowed or permitted uses in any of the Town’s zoning districts. I
have examined the past practice of permitting firehouses and other public type facility uses in the
Town of Queensbury. Several firehouses have been constructed and/or expanded over the last
several years and there appears to be no consistent treatment of this land use. As you are aware,
there is recent case law (Matter of County of Monroe vs. City of Rochester, Nanuet Fire Co. No. 1, Inc. vs.
Amster) confirming the potential applicability of local zoning to firehouses. It is my determination
that the omission of firehouses as allowed uses in any zone within the Town of Queensbury is
inadvertent and that construction of a firehouse is an allowed use in all zones subject to site plan
review. Site plan review is the proper mechanism to receive public input on the proposed project. If
you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me at 761-8221. Sincerely, Chris
Round”
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that was it, right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-A Warren County note to approve, and that was it, right? Good evening,
gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Chip Mellon, the Fire Chief, and Richard
Jones. We’ve been to the Zoning Board last week, and just so you understand, because this is in the
RR-3A zone, it required 75% green space, which is an incredible percentage, even though Dick was
able to design the site with 63% green space, which is still very substantial, if you compare this to a
commercial type structure in any other zone. Because it’s in that residential zone, it needed a
variance, and the Zoning Board unanimously granted that, and the other variance was just for the
Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and they agreed with us that there’s plenty of land across the street, if
the road was ever going to be expanded. So it wasn’t an issue here. That’s why we had to deal with
those two area variances which were fairly minor issues in this case. Because the case law that Chris
referenced in his letter dealing with the zoning issue talks about, and I’ve talked to the Town
Attorney at some length about this, that fire companies are treated a little bit differently than your
run of the mill commercial or residential type development, because there’s a presumption of a
public need, obviously, for a fire company. Not that we think that our site plan in any way needs any
kind of special treatment, because we think that it’s a very good site plan, and the design of the
building we think is very nice, and we hope you will also, but I’d just like to start out quickly about
having Chip talk about why it’s important for the Fire Company to consolidate their facilities into
this new site, and then we’ll get on to go through the site plan and have Dick answer the questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MELLON-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. MELLON-Basically to give you a little background on how we arrived at the plans for the new
station. We’ve been working on this concept for over five years. This was first referred in an official
document in the Town commissioned MMA Study that began in 1995. In that Study they suggested
that our Station be replaced for several reasons. Basically, the current station that we have on
Sunnyside Road is designed for apparatus of the 1950’s and 60’s. At that time the apparatus were
shorter and lower in height than they are currently. We currently have two pieces of apparatus that
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
can’t fit in the existing Station. They have to be housed at our Glen Lake Road Station, for that
reason. We also need apparatus space to house all eight of our pieces of equipment, in the event of
any type of emergency. Currently, we can’t do that, if we had to shut one station down and move to
the other one, and we also lack storage space. We have virtually none now. We need more office
space, meeting and training room facilities, and most importantly, very importantly, we need a
building that has full emergency power and can be used as an emergency shelter to lodge Town
residents, if so needed. Most recently, in September of 1999, when Hurricane Floyd went through,
we had to evacuate some 60 residents of Ledgeview Village to our Station, due to the hazards of the
storm. There wasn’t really enough to do that comfortably for the people. Also in the Blizzard of ’93
we opened our Stations to use as an emergency shelter, and currently out existing facilities have no
room for growth or expansion on the property. The site that we’ve chosen on Bay, at Old Bay Road,
has several advantages. It’s centrally located to our fire district. It’s the geographic center of our
district. It would provide excellent response routes to all areas of the district, north, south, east and
west. We also have quick access to Route 149, where we have a large amount of calls, including
motor vehicle accidents, tractor trailer rollovers, etc. As far as exiting on to Bay Road from the
apparatus bays, there are very good lines of site, both north and south, for the emergency vehicles,
and that was noted in the Creighton Manning Traffic Study that we agreed to do for the Town Board
in January. As far as coming from Station One west across Bay Road, we’ve always had trouble at
Bay and Sunnyside Roads for visibility purposes. So this site would eliminate that, and it’s centrally
located for manpower. The property’s large enough for future expansion, if needed, and as I
mentioned, there are good accessibility routes, in addition for the apparatus, but for our members to
get to the Station. We, in turn, would improve our response times. We now have a requirement that
we have to have a minimum crew of firefighters on the apparatus before they respond. It’s not a
case they can just have a driver take the apparatus to the scene. With two Stations, there are different
times during the day and nighttime where we may have one or two people coming in to each Station,
where if you took those one or two people, it turns into two to four people and becomes a
firefighting crew, which basically means that you can get an apparatus on the road, en route to the
scene, much quicker. So we believe that will, in turn, reduce our response times. What our goal is, to
consolidate our operations into the one Station. We will be selling both of the existing Stations, with
the proceeds being used toward this new facility. We did meet with neighbors, and advised all the
neighbors in the immediate area of our plans. The ones that were eager to meet with us, we believe
that we positively addressed any concerns they had. Laura has some letters to that effect, from the
neighbors. Basically, this facility would be one that can be beneficial to the Town of Queensbury,
and the residents of the Bay Ridge Fire District for several years to come, 50, 100, as long as we’re
there. So basically, in closing, the construction of a new modernized fire station has the potential to
benefit all the residents of Queensbury for many reasons. The larger apparatus, storage and office
facilities will allow a more capable operation. A centralized location in the Bay Ridge Fire District
will allow us to be more efficient. This will, in turn, improve response times to fire and rescue calls.
An emergency shelter will full generator power will be provided, in the event of a catastrophic event,
and the consolidation of two stations into one has the potential to reduce costs to the Queensbury
taxpayers. Overall, this project will put us in the position to provide better fire protection under our
current Town Fire Contract. Basically, most of our members, or quite a few members, are lifelong
residents of Queensbury, and we take pride in providing quality fire and rescue services to our
community. We feel that construction of a new fire station would further enhance our services.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JONES-What I’d like to do is just briefly walk you through the site plan, talk about the zoning
of the site and the zoning of the building, as to how we laid it out on the property. What you’re
looking at right here is Bay Road on the bottom side. Old Bay Road loops around the top portion of
the property. South is to this end, north to this end. As you look at the site, basically we’ve zoned
the site to segregate public use of the building and Fire Company use of the building, whether it be
for Fire Company functions, for response to an emergency. The public end of the building is the
south end of the building with the meeting room. What we’re looking at is a parking lot on the south
end, basically, to house enough vehicles for use of the public space. We’ve sized the parking lot
based upon an assembly space, basically one parking space for every four seats. The membership is
approximately 50 to 55 currently for the Fire Company, and we’ve added an additional, I believe it’s
33 spaces for their use. When you look at the site, as I’ve said, this is the public access end of the
property. This is the Fire Company area. The service bays, vehicle bays, are here on the north end
of the building. What we’re looking to be able to do is have people responding to an emergency as a
fireman coming in to the north parking lot, segregated from the traffic at the public end of the
building. The apron on the front side of the building is basically for egress only of emergency
vehicles. The building is set up so that these are actually drive through bays. In setting up the
parking arrangement that we have, we were trying to mitigate the amount of traffic and impact that
we would have on Old Bay Road. Basically we have the two residences on the, kind of the southeast
side of Old Bay Road. We have an additional residence down here, and then one further down on
Bay. There is one that’s tucked up in the trees up here on the south end, but we were attempting to
basically mitigate or minimize the amount of traffic that we would have on Old Bay Road.
Emergency response would be coming in on this side, exiting on this side. Public would be coming
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
in on this side, and exiting on this site. Again, trying to zone the site, so that we don’t have a conflict
between the two. The drive on the back side is basically for the return of emergency vehicles. As I
said, these are drive through bays. Emergency vehicles would be coming back in and driving through
and then lining up for exiting again out on to Bay Road. The basic site right now is kind of an open
meadow. There are some large evergreens approximately in this location. They would be being
removed because they would infringe upon parking in the building area. We are looking to basically
landscape the entire site. We’re converting everything to lawn area. The Fire Company is looking at
an in-ground irrigation system to maintain that. We are doing roadway side maple trees and some
birch clumps coming down through. We’re actually trying to add some, we feel some good
landscaping to the site. The site pitches from the south end to the north end, approximately 50 feet
downhill in the length of the site. The actual area where we’re doing work is about a 24 foot
differential. It’s a little bit deceiving when you’re out there on the site, but it’s roughly an eight
percent slope across the entire property. The area where we’re placing the building is somewhat
level. It’s a plateau area. We’re looking to cut the parking in. So this is actually a berm coming
down. We’re looking to landscape the berm to basically conceal the parking in that area from the
residents on the back side, and from visibility along Bay Road. So the parking lot in here, you’re
coming down about five feet in the berm area. You’re coming across in a level parking area. The
building is all one level. So there’s no handicap access issues inside the building itself. As you come
out the Fire Company, or the response end for the Fire Company, we’re coming down a set of steps
about three to four feet on this end, to a parking lot, and then we fall off in this area. The existing
well for the property is located on this end. Our septic is going to be up in this general area. So we
have good distance separations not only to the well on our property, but also the adjacent residents.
We have good distance separations to the properties that are also located on the north end. The
lighting that we’re proposing on the project is a series of light poles. These are about a 20 foot high
pole. They have a decorative architectural fixture that will be mounted on them. The mounting
height of the fixture will be at 15 feet. It’s a tall pole with a looped top on it and a decorative fixture.
Everything that we’re proposing, whether it be the surface mounted along the front of the bays, or
the pole mounted fixtures, are all cut off fixtures. We’re limiting the light to down only, and
basically, when we ran our computations for foot candle levels and spillover on the property, by the
time we got to the edge of Bay Road on the front side, we were about a half a foot candle at the two
entrances, and we were about a tenth of a foot candle on the back side, on Old Bay Road, and we’ve
submitted that information to Laura for her review, and the consultant’s review. Basically, as the
elevations depict, we’re looking at a single story, masonry building with a wood framed roof. There
was a little bit of confusion, I believe, from some notes that were taken at the meeting with the Town
Board back in January, in reference to a water table. The water table that we were referencing is the
stone band that actually runs around the base of the building. This is called a water table. The stone
projects a little bit from the building, and we’re using that to protect the base of the building. Once
we get above that, we would have a vinyl or a wood siding at that point. We would have shingle
roofs, dormers, gables, that type of thing. We’re trying to keep the building in a residential character.
We’re trying to conceal all of the mechanical equipment. Everything would be in the attic space or
suspended above the ceilings inside the buildings. All of the dormers we would be using for
ventilation, whether it be mechanical equipment in the building or ventilation of the attic itself. The
basic building, as I said, is single story. Public function to the north end. Fire Company functions to
the south end, Fire Company functions to the north end of the site. That pretty much covers what
we’re doing with the site and the building. Would you like me to go through the list of questions at
this point?
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we, if you’re done with your part of the presentation, I’ll just start with
the Board, and we’ll just fire some questions to you that anyone would have. Maybe expedite things
here a little bit tonight. John, we’ll start with you, any questions?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I have a concern. My concern is the sight distance from the southwest entry,
what you call the public entry?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now I know there’s been a sight distance analysis done by Creighton Manning, but
it was done at 45 miles an hour, and so I just wanted to see if 45 miles an hour was accurate. So I
went up and down Bay Road, followed the cars, turned around, followed the next car, turned around
and followed the next car. I did that Monday evening. The speeds averaged between 51 and 61
miles per hour. As a matter of fact, the one that was going 61 was a Warren County Sheriff’s
Department car. It wasn’t in an emergency situation. So my concern is this, is that looking at the
analysis, I see that the Bay Road southern driveway has a distance measurement of 650, and a New
York State Standard of 635. So it’s close at 45. None of the cars were going 45. I like the project,
for the reasons that you gave, I think, you know, sometimes you just want something so bad, but I
also have to consider public safety. So I wonder what the traffic analysis or the sight distance
analysis would be, given realistic speeds along Bay Road.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
MR. LAPPER-Our answer is going to be that we are required to do it based upon the posted speed
limit, not to take into account the people who might speed, and treat that as an enforcement issue.
MR. STROUGH-And my answer to that would be, I represent public safety, and so I have to deal
with things as they realistically are, and no one went 45, and seeing as it’s already very, very close, in
the analysis, it might fail, if you dealt with realistic speeds. So now, I’m not trying to kill the project.
I’m trying to suggest that the only entrance that seems to have that problem is that southwest, what
you call public entrance. The rest seems to be pretty clear. That’s the only one that’s kind of iffy.
Might there be some consideration in moving that, possibly putting the public entrance on Old Bay
Road, keeping the parking lot right where it is, just putting the public entrance on Old Bay Road and
suggest that people use the northern most entrance to Old Bay Road? As a suggestion, or something
in that line, because I think there is a safety issue with that entrance.
MR. JONES-When we were actually laying out the site, we looked at a lot of options on locations for
entrances on to the site. As I’ve indicated, the site is sloping about 50 feet from end to end. When
you take a plateaued area as large as we’re dealing with, with the building and the parking and the
drives, it becomes very difficult to manipulate the grades. We looked at trying to move the
southernmost entry into the public parking, down toward the major apparatus bays, but as soon as
we started doing that, we had to start pushing the building, and if we moved it to the south, the site
lines became worse, and it became steeper. It became over 10%, which was not a manageable grade
to be able to enter the site, or exit the site. In looking at entrances onto the backside, from Old Bay
Road, I think that our major concern there was the volume of traffic that we would be introducing to
that roadway, which really has residences on it, and I think the posted speed limit on that is 30, at the
present time.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that doesn’t give me a sufficient answer.
MR. MAC EWAN-But, John, you know, you have to take into consideration the fact that what your
survey was was rather unscientific. I mean, you had three vehicles. One of them was definite an
emergency vehicle.
MR. STROUGH-No, I was there for about an hour.
MR. MAC EWAN-You said you followed three vehicles.
MR. STROUGH-No, I said I followed several vehicles. If what you heard is three, that’s not right,
and none of the vehicles went 45. It’s a legitimate concern, okay, and the other thing is, I just want
to put out, is there’s a berm there, there will be, after the firehouse is built. There’s a berm, and you
said five foot. I think I counted the contour as 10 foot, and there’s a berm there, which also looks
like, appears as if it limits your viewing of cars that are approaching, cars that are going north on Bay.
Do you see what I’m saying? At the very entrance that I’m concerned about.
MR. JONES-No, that won’t occur at the driveway. The cut that you’re looking at occurs further
down on the, what would be the inside corner of the south end. As you get to the driveway, we’re
looking at an elevation at the top portion of the driveway of around 78. The elevation at the
roadway cutting on the south side of the end is at 80. So you’re about two feet at the top part of the
driveway, and you’re almost at 80 feet at the bottom of the driveway. So I levels out in that 40 feet
that we’ve got coming out on the entrance.
MR. STROUGH-How far in does it level out there?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask you to put it right up on the board, if you could, so the whole audience
can see it.
MR. JONES-The area that you’re looking at is right here, at 10 feet, roughly. The edge of the end of
the drive for parking is here. Grade elevation right there is 78. Grade elevation right there, 40 feet
away.
MR. STROUGH-That’s right at the very tip of the driveway. Anybody inside is going to be
somewhat blocked by that berm.
MR. JONES-Well, from that point to that point is 40 feet. A vehicle length is roughly 18 feet. The
car is going to be sitting here at roughly 79. Road elevation right there is 80, and it’s going up hill.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that wouldn’t be an issue, there.
MR. JONES-No. It shouldn’t be an issue at that point.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. STROUGH-I’ll save it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set for now
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just looking at the notes, I guess, that Staff had provided here. Section
179-66(4) of the Town Code requires curb cuts to have a 150 foot separation distance from each
other for commercial or industrial use. I noticed that we’re running about 80 foot on the visitor
access from the main concrete apron, and then 40 foot for the emergency response section, 40 foot
from the concrete section, and I don’t know whether that can be waived or, that 150 foot separation.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s from the County, that curb cut.
MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, I’ll interrupt, the comment that’s in there is referenced to
commercial industrial use. This is not considered a project such as that. So therefore it doesn’t apply
to that.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MRS. MOORE-It was a suggestion.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and to just follow up on that, in other words, it doesn’t need to be
formally waived, is what Laura is saying. It’s just there for guidance.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes. I was just looking at it, and looking at these comments, and didn’t
quite understand why the comment was in the notes to begin with, since I recognize a fire company
doesn’t have the same.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s just a guidance point from Staff for some reason.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So on that section, I don’t see any problem. Looking at C.T. Male’s third
comment, the proposed grade is very steep to the southwest corner of the proposed parking lot. It
looks pretty flat to me. I didn’t understand their comment at all. I looked at your contour lines, and
it doesn’t look like there’s as much of a grade there as they seem to think there is.
MR. JONES-We had designed it for about a one on three, which would allow them to basically plant
the berm, and then maintain the lawn portions with mowing, and basically what we’ve indicated here
is we’re flattening it out to roughly one on five, and when I talked to the gentleman at C.T. Male
today, he felt that was adequate.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. When I looked at the contours on here, I didn’t see that much of a. I
don’t have anything further than that right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, I have nothing right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Could someone tell me what a 3,000 gallon concrete cistern is?
MR. JONES-Yes. That was a question that came up in the comments from both the Town and C.T.
Male. What we’re looking for, and what the fire company is proposing to use, is an underground
storage tank for a volume of water. The volume of water would be used to supplement filling of
trucks, and then it would also be used for the on site lawn irrigation system. Is it not our intent to
use it for the public service of water in the building, for potable water. We wouldn’t be doing that,
and basically it’s just a storage vessel for water.
MR. METIVIER-What type of noise, besides the sirens, will be generated, especially the testing of
generators and things like that?
MR. MELLON-As far as the testing of generators.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
MR. METIVIER-Don’t you have to test generators once a week?
MR. MELLON-Yes. They’d run once a week for about 30 minutes, and generally we run them
during the early evening. We don’t do them at night.
MR. METIVIER-How would you compare that noise wise, to like a lawn mower or?
MR. JONES-The generator that we’re looking at, we’re looking to locate it outside, next to the
building on the east side. We’re looking at what they consider an insulated jacket for acoustic, and
the differential between a normal generator noise and that are quite dramatic. The cost differential is
quite a bit of money, but we’re interested in doing that because we are placing it outside the building,
and I’m going to say that it would be, I’m trying to think of something to compare it to for noise.
It’s certainly not a lawn mower. Maybe an air conditioner compressor, that type of thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have some specs on this?
MR. JONES-Yes, we do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you supply them to us?
MR. JONES-Yes, we can.
MR. METIVIER-And who will maintain the existing firehouses until they’re sold?
MR. MELLON-The fire company.
MR. METIVIER-The fire company will.
MR. MELLON-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-Is there a big market for firehouses there?
MR. MELLON-Basically, it’s in the hands of a realtor, but at this point, we have interested parties in
both facilities.
MR. METIVIER-But the ambulance bays will stay where they are, correct?
MR. MELLON-Yes. The Bay Ridge Rescue Squad is a separate entity. Their building is on Ridge
Road. That’s not a part of the fire company. Yes, that would stay the same.
MR. METIVIER-That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re kind of limited at your two other stations. Isn’t it kind of limited to what
kind of commercial endeavor could use those? Considering where they are?
MR. LAPPER-The one on Sunnyside is in a Neighborhood Commercial zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, yes, I’m thinking of the one over on Glen Lake, the newer one.
MRS. MOORE-I’m not certain what zoning it is, but I know they’re residential in nature. I’m not
certain of what the exact zoning is.
MR. MAC EWAN-It was just a curious question, that’s all. Tony, .did you have anything else?
MR. METIVIER-No, I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Getting back to Mr. Metivier’s question here, 3,000 gallon tank, is that like a pre-
fab, fiberglass tank or something?
MR. JONES-It’ll be a pre-cast concrete tank, traffic weight, tops and everything else. It would be
similar to an underground septic tank, only a heck of a lot larger.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the only question I really had was, are you proposing any evening activities
like Bingo or some other functions that the public would be going to, like on a weekly basis?
MR. MELLON-Not really on a weekly basis. The only public functions that we have, at this point,
the Glen Lake and Lake Sunnyside Association each have a group, they meet at our station once a
month, and the elections, things like that. We don’t have Bingo or a set fundraiser for the public at
this point. We don’t anticipate that either.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Both your firehouses are polling places, aren’t they?
MR. MELLON-No, just the one on, the one on Sunnyside is actually two polling places, two
separate ones.
MR. MAC EWAN-The one on Glen Lake Road isn’t used for polling at all?
MR. MELLON-No, I think they go to the Municipal Center for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. METIVIER-What type of siren are you going to be using now?
MR. MELLON-The siren that we’ll be using is an air horn, which is what we use at this point. It
doesn’t blow as long, as a conventional siren, per se.
MR. METIVIER-It’s not like the one up in North Queensbury, is it?
MR. MELLON-No, that’s an electronic siren.
MR. ABBOTT-The meeting room, how many people will that hold in it?
MR. JONES-That’s designed to hold 99 people.
MR. ABBOTT-Ninety-nine people, and you have how many parking spots on that side of the
building?
MR. JONES-We have, I believe there’s actually, there’s 22 on the fire company end, which would
leave 36 between the other two, and I think we figured we needed 25, one for every four seats. So
we feel we have adequate parking on that end. It was kind of finding a balance between what the fire
company needed and the public use. There is no guideline for a fire company for parking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Have you got any other questions?
MR. ABBOTT-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read these letters in?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. A letter dated September 22, 1999, from Marv Lemery, the Fire Coordinator,
To Whom It May Concern: As Warren County Fire Coordinator, I am pleased to offer this letter of
support on behalf of the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company in their desire to build a new firehouse
on Bay Road in the Town of Queensbury. In my opinion, a couple of good things happen when
they relocate to this location. First, they consolidate two stations into one and have all their fire
apparatus and equipment in a central location more suitable for their fire protection districts.
Secondly, they are going to be able to offer a place of shelter for victims of any large scale incident
that may occur not only in the Bay Ridge Fire District but also within Warren County. This new
facility will not only benefit the members and residents of the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Department
District, but also has the potential to benefit all of the residents of Warren County. Thanking you for
your consideration in this matter, I remain, Sincerely, Marvin F. Lemery Fire Coordinator” This is
from Gary Scidmore, it’s dated September 22, 1999. Gary Scidmore is the Warren County Deputy
EMS Coordinator, it says “Dear Chip: I am writing you this letter in response to your request for
support pertaining to the possible land acquisition of the old Warren County DPW facilities on Bay
Road for the development of a new firehouse. I think your idea to have a more centrally located
firehouse which would also serve as an emergency community shelter, with generator capabilities is
excellent. I am fully in support of your project and commend your preplanning efforts. If I can be
of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Gary Scidmore
Warren County Deputy EMS Coordinator” This is a letter dated January 10, 2000, from John Doty,
Jr. and Mary Anne Doty, “Dear Mr. Mellon: John and I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss
with you and your committee the proposed plans for a new fire station on Bay Road near our
residence. We are impressed by your report of your current activities ad how necessary a new facility
is for the efficient use of your resources and quick response to emergencies. Your openness to
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
hearing our concerns is gratifying to us. We are glad to learn that minimizing the noise (sirens)
during response to nighttime calls is already a concern for your department. We are pleased that you
are willing to consider options to minimize the impact on nighttime ambiance of the neighborhood
of any security lighting on the proposed site. Your intention to landscape and maintain the new
facility will certainly make it a handsome addition to our area. Thank you for being available for
conversation at this early stage. We look forward to learning more about this project as plans
proceed. Sincerely, John R. Doty, Jr. Mary Anne Doty” This letter is dated January 12, 2000, from
Joseph Duell “My name is Joseph A. Duell and I reside at 1100 Bay Road. It has come to my
attention that there is a proposal to build a new FireHouse where the Town used to have their plows
and sand trucks. I am taking this opportunity to say that I am in favor of this proposal. I think that
would be a benefit to the community. Sincerely, Joseph A. Duell 1100 Bay Road Lake George, NY
12804”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
JACEY WILLIAMS
MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. My name is Jacey Williams, and I live at 33 Willow Road, which is nowhere
near this. I want to mention something that Mr. Metivier is getting at, and I just think, you know, the
volunteer fire department and the fire department in general just does a terrific job here, and this
obviously is a great project, but I am a self appointed committee of one, in charge of noise pollution
in the Town of Queensbury, and is that siren on top of that one gable there, is that what that is, is
that the siren?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. WILLIAMS-We live in a digital age, an electronic era, and I notice that Chip, the ringleader
here, does such a great job. You’ve got a beeper on, right, and that’s how you get called?
MR. MELLON-Sometimes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to address your comments to the Board, please.
MR. WILLIAMS-So anyway, I’m just wondering is it part of State law that the newest technology
buildings in the fire service have 1950’s sirens?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that question answered for your. We’ll ask them and ask them to
respond to it.
MR. WILLIAMS-Great. Because, you know, I think the beepers are the key to the response team.
Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time
being. Are sirens required?
MR. MELLON-Okay. I can answer the question on his concerns about the sirens and audible
warning devices. Even though, at today’s modern age, we are alerted by voice pagers, as recently as a
week ago Tuesday, the Warren County Sheriff’s Department, who alerts the fire companies and
emergency squads for emergency calls, went down. For whatever reason, the alert system was
inactive for a period of time during the day, and the only way that the County could alter us, if they
had to, would be to activate our siren. So that is why we feel that we still have to have the siren. In
our district in particular, the County’s radio tower is on Prospect Mountain. We have French
Mountain in between Prospect and most of our district. We have dead spots, and occasionally, our
members do not hear the calls. If it wasn’t for the siren, believe or not, you know, they may not
hear the call. So that is why we still need a siren on the station. As far as nighttime calls, which is
probably the most concern, we had 349 fire calls in 1999. Of those, 13 fire calls occurred during the
evening hours, which means there’s 13 times that the fire whistle blew, basically just about one time a
month. So as far as the amount of times the whistle actually blows, it’s not as much as you may
think.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are the State requirements for notification for fire companies? I mean, do
they require fire companies to have sirens, auxiliary systems, back up systems?
MR. MELLON-They require us to have a system. I don’t know if it specifically says how to do it,
but basically there’s a system in place that audits how fire companies respond to calls, and one of the
criteria they check on how the department is alerted. Basically, you’re alerted by pagers and sirens.
You get more credit for having more than one way to be alerted. The other part of this, the Warren
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
County Civil Defense system is still activated. Basically, if there’s a natural disaster or something like
that, the County has the ability to notify all the fire companies by sounding their sirens, which in turn
notifies all the residents in whatever community that there is some type of catastrophic event. So
without having the siren, there’d be no way to notify the community that there’s a problem. Thank
God that doesn’t happen all that often, but we have had some occasions in the last few years.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ABBOTT-Is there certain times a day that the siren goes off every day?
MR. MELLON-The siren goes off every day at twelve noon, except Sundays.
MR. METIVIER-What was Mrs. Doty referring to, as far as mitigating noise at night?
MR. MELLON-The Doty’s live on Old Bay Road. Actually, they live on Juniper Drive and their
property borders Old Bay Road. They had the same concerns that you addressed about the siren. So
when we explained to them what I just explained to you about how often the siren actually blows,
that that basically, I think, addressed their concerns. They were, had the conception that the whistle
blows a lot more than it actually does at night. So that’s what they meant in the letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-I have one thought. It still deals with my concern here. Let me run this idea by
you. I don’t know if I’m getting any support from other Board members on this, but I’m concerned
about the southwest drive. Now, how about if you had signage that said it was a right in only, and
that the signage would direct exiting traffic to use the northern driveway? Because even at 45, it’s
close.
MR. JONES-I think you’re referring to this in only, and this exit only, or in and out?
MR. STROUGH-Well, that could be in and out, but directing the traffic that maybe this might be a
public event, let’s say something like the Glen Lake Association, and that when they come in and do
their meeting, they exit using the more northern route, and the reason why I say that has got some
foundation. I mean, even Creighton Manning’s sight distance analysis puts this entrance as being
very close to being unacceptable. I just want to add that to that, my observation that I think that
traffic actually goes faster than 45 along that stretch of Bay Road. I think it’s a safe assumption, and
if that’s so, then that would make that an unsafe access point. It would be safer to prevent traffic
from exiting at that point, in my mind.
MR. JONES-We still feel that the issue of speed limit here is an enforcement issue, and as John had
indicated, it was set up and based on the 45 mile an hour speed zone. What we’re attempting to do is
zone traffic on the site, so that if we’re having a public function, we have an emergency response, we
don’t have a conflict of traffic on site. People responding will more than likely have sirens. Do the
people in your have lights and sirens?
MR. MELLON-The Chiefs.
MR. JONES-Okay, but none of the others? Okay. We are trying to mitigate conflict of traffic on
site. If emergency vehicles are exiting here, as we had indicated, everyone else, if whistles and sirens
are going and lights, they’re obligated to stop, by State law. We feel that, based on 45 mile and hour
speed zone, which is what it is, that this is reasonable, and it’s really the best solution for the site.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m sure you have a public safety in mind as well as I do.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And I think we both know that nobody goes 45.
MR. MAC EWAN-But, John, I mean, based on the information that they need to do to compile the
studies, is what’s required in not only the Ordinance, but design specs.
MR. STROUGH-But it doesn’t make sense. If no one goes 45, then why are we doing sight
distances for 45? Because I know the speed limit says 45.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then you need to get on the horn and call the Sheriff’s Department and tell them
to set a speed trap up there so they can catch people. I mean, you have to deal in realistic terms.
MR. STROUGH-I am. As soon as the police go away, everyone’s going to go back to 50, 60 miles
an hour anyway.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the points, I’ll make is that the three of us our sitting there huddling and
looking at the site distance that they have out of there, and I feel comfortable with the grading
they’ve got here, that you can see amply well in that direction. Secondly, you did a very, how do I
want to put this, unscientific observation, where you only followed a handful of cars, including one
of them that happened to be an emergency vehicle, and you don’t know if that emergency vehicle
was responding to an emergency.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Just go on. You’re never going to satisfy me.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. That why we have a Board made up of several members.
MR. LAPPER-Once the facility is there, right now people are speeding because there’s nothing there.
It’s open, and once there’s a firehouse, and sheriffs sitting there now and again, it’ll probably slow
people down.
MR. STROUGH-Will there be caution, will there be a yellow caution light?
MR. LAPPER-Possibly.
MR. STROUGH-That would slow people down.
MR. METIVIER-Aren’t you required?
MR. LAPPER-That’s County or State.
MR. MELLON-It’s not required, but we did talk to the woman who did the Creighton Manning
report. We told her that, we from the fire company, we’re thinking of doing that, but she couldn’t
authorize it because her job is to go by the guidelines. That’s something that the Company has
discussed, as a way to let people know that there’s activity there. Some of the other Departments in
Town have amber flashing lights that come on when there is a fire emergency. Basically, that’s the
only time that they flash. We’ve talked about doing the same thing, but we have to make sure if we
do it, that it’s allowed in that use, but that’s certainly something that we’d consider.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you guys wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have one, and the answer is probably buried under this 10 by 10 drawing
here, but if you look at the septic system, I think C.T. Male talked about this 45 degree turn in there,
if I remember reading their stuff right.
MR. JONES-Yes, they did.
MR. VOLLARO-What was your answer to that? It’s under here somewhere.
MR. JONES-We’re going to be straightening out the line coming in to the tank.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and how about the seepage tank that’s up against that retaining wall?
MR. JONES-We’re moving it about five to seven feet to the south, to have ten to twelve feet of
clearance to the retaining wall.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s is in your answers.
MR. JONES-Yes, that’s in the answers and the revised plans.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Considering that you still have, basically, all the issues to be reviewed by C.T.
Male, and I’d actually ask the Board to move on a tabling of this.
MR. LAPPER-We’re agreeable to that. I just want to make on quick comment, just in terms of
having the new engineering firm on board, in terms of, from the applicant’s perspective, the way we
had been used to working with Rist-Frost was that we would get their comments a few days in
advance and we would respond in writing, as Dick did, and they would usually go through, and
before the meeting fax a letter back saying, okay, we see your changes and now we’re satisfied. So
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
just in terms of, in the big picture, going forward, maybe getting C.T. Male onto that program, just so
that, because you wouldn’t want every application to have to be tabled for a month just so you can
get that kind of a letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you not get their responses in a reasonable time or something?
MR. JONES-We got their responses, I believe it was last Thursday afternoon. We got Staff
comments Tuesday morning. So we had sufficient time, but there were, some of the articles we had
to do some additional test pits on site, those types of things. So we were, we wanted to resubmit
everything in one package. We didn’t want to do it piecemeal, and that’s why we didn’t get it back to
them in time to enable them to basically do a response. I talked to him, but he was on his way out of
the office this afternoon and did not have time to respond.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So I guess I’m lost by your comment, then.
MR. LAPPER-I didn’t realize that, because I hadn’t seen the letter that early. So I didn’t realize that
it came in a week ago. So I’m wrong.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve been trying to step up the program so we’ll get the timetables, but of
course there’s timetables to receive the information and Staff has to review the information. Then it
has to be dispersed to a multitude of departments and directions. So it’s a timing thing.
MR. LAPPER-We agree that tabling for another month is an appropriate thing. It doesn’t interfere
with their building schedule.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would someone like to put a motion up?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2000 BAY RIDGE VOL. FIRE CO., INC.,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Until June 20, 2000. The reason for tabling is pending C.T. Male’s sign off of Richard E. Jones’
comments of May 24. That they’re also going to supply us with information regarding the
th
generator and its noise reduction capabilities.
Duly adopted this 25 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll see you next month.
SITE PLAN NO. 15-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
OWNER: SAME AGENT: C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. ZONE: RR-3A
LOCATION: NE CORNER BAY & DREAM LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 20,000 SQ. FT. CHURCH, CLASSROOM AND MEETING
ROOM WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND UTILITIES. CHRUCH IS A TYPE II
SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE RR-3A ZONE AND REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 89-1993, AV 16-2000
BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 RIST
FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 51-1-35.1 LOT SIZE: 17.28 ACRES SECTION:
179-15
FRANK FAZEO & ED GODDERT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-2000, Bay Road Presbyterian Church, Meeting Date: May 25,
2000 “
Staff Notes:
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
The application for a 20,000 square foot church was tabled at the March 28, 2000 meeting for
additional information. The Board requested the applicant provide information on the existing light
levels for Bay and Dream Lake Road street lights and proposed lighting on the site, identify building
light locations with fixture type and wattage, and clarify areas on the site that will remain open
meadow and lawn. Staff was requested to forward a revised lighting plan of the church site to The
Chazen Companies for review and comment. Staff was also requested to research and provide
information on requirements of nursery school facilities. The applicant has provided a revised
lighting plan that has an average foot candle level of 1.5 and is 1/2 above the recommended
guidelines of the new zoning ordinance. The road light information was also provided for Dream
Lake Road with a foot candle of 7.2 directly under the light, and no information was provided for the
Bay Road light because it was not located near the entrance of the church. The Chazen Company
provided a review and comment of the Lighting plan and suggested the applicant provide revised
drawings to bring the lighting levels closer to the proposed guidelines. Chazen also suggested to
include cut sheet information and low glare lexan lenses. The applicant responded to these
comments that they would rather not compromise any further on the light levels for the use of the
site for a church. The applicant also provided a revised site plan that identifies the building light
fixture type and wattage. The plans also clarify areas to be left as open meadow or lawn. The
building Committee Co-Chair also provided information on Nursery School facilities. Staff has
researched the regulations and found that a nursery school defined by the state is a facility that
provides care for three hours a day or less and it is a regulated program by the State Department of
Social Services, as indicated on the website "State of New York Department of Social Services-A
Parent's Guide to Child Care". The website indicates a license or registration is required for
programs were care is provided for more than two or more children and care is provided for three or
more hours. The nursery school for this site as described does not appear to require a certificate or
license to operate. Staff would suggest the Planning Board consider the following during their review
of the site plan: Lights will be used only as needed; and Lights will be used until 10:00 P.M.”
MRS. MOORE-I’ll read the sign off from Rist-Frost on May 9, 2000. “Rist-Frost has reviewed all
additional information and updated site plans submitted by C.T. Male and Associates. All additional
information and updated site plans are acceptable and all comments have been satisfactorily
addressed.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. FAZEO-Good evening. I’m Frank Fazeo with C.T. Male Associates.
MR. GODDERT-Ed Goddert, co-Chair of the Building Committee, Bay Road Presbyterian Church.
SKIP LA ROSE
MR. LA ROSE-Skip LaRose, co-Chairman also.
MR. MAC EWAN-Frank, why don’t you just fill us in where we left off.
MR. FAZEO-I think one of our main issues of the last meeting was lighting levels. What we have
done is resubmit the lighting plan to the Town. We actually added more light fixtures to the site. We
added a couple to on the front of the Church here, and one in the back corner over here, and we had
one in the middle. What I’ve done here is this is the point by point plot, which I submitted, which
has an average of one and a half foot candles. The areas in dark green, as I’m indicating through
here, are areas which are directly under the light fixtures themselves, which obviously will have the
lightest intensity. They’re three foot candles or above, and I think the highest one went up to
roughly, I think we’ve got six in here and five and a half over here, and five and a half over here. The
area in light blue is an area which is 1.5 foot candles or greater. As you can see, obviously, they
follow along the darker green areas in the middle of the parking lot. The orange areas that I have
indicated here are the areas of 0.8 foot candles or greater. Anything that falls on the side in the white
areas is less than .8, which is I guess the recommended requirements for the lighting levels in a rural
area. So I think we’ve tried to accomplish the best way we can, in order to get this light level to work
at this site. We have numerous numbers of lights on the site already. In order to further reduce this,
and keep the light levels off that we feel would be safe for this facility, we’d end up putting more
poles up on site, and you’d have more, I think you’d have more visual pollution from seeing light
fixtures than you would from the actual glare, which is actually strictly, again, like I said, underneath
the fixtures themselves, and I think the last meeting you had asked what does this level look like. So
what we actually did was we brought a light meter up to your lights outside your building here, and
what we found was, underneath your light fixtures, the levels were around five and a half, 5.6
roughly, in one of the areas, and one was 4.7. As you got away from it, you got into the 3.6, 3.9
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
range, which is almost exactly what we’re showing here in our photometrics on this site, so to answer
your question, when you walk out tonight, take a look at your parking lot, that’s the levels you’ll see
underneath the light fixtures. Because I said, right directly under your light fixtures is 5.6, and that’s
almost what we were hitting on these light fixtures here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. FAZEO-No, I think that was the main issue that we were discussing last time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was just looking at the foot candles on the ground, calculations of the
typical, I’m just wondering if we were to take high pressure sodium and use those instead of metal
halide, the halide, whether or not we could get, pick a wattage that was comparable to what you’ve
got in metal halide, or a wattage that would give you the same amount of lumens on the ground as
you’ve got now, and yet get a softer light, because of where this project sits out in space there out on
the road, that the high pressure sodium might give you a softer, an overall softer light, and still get
the same lumens on the ground, by picking a different wattage.
MR. FAZEO-Yes. The high pressure sodiums actually give you a higher lumens, but they do appear
softer, basically because of the other lights. So your foot candles actually are up.
MR. VOLLARO-But you could pick a wattage in high pressure sodium that’ll give you approximately
the same light distribution in foot candles as you’ve got now, I would think. You’d just have to
modify the wattage some. Instead of 250, you might have to go, you know, up just a little higher to
get the same amount on the ground. I don’t know, but that’s, you know, they are a softer light.
MR. FAZEO-They’re more yellowish, yes, but they do have an intensity to them also.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just wondering, you know, from the aesthetics, whether or not we could
get an overall light distribution that would be a little softer and still give you the same foot candle
distribution as you’ve got over the site now.
MR. FAZEO-Yes. I mean, we’re not opposed to that. We’re finding there’s not as much use for
high pressure sodium, as metal halide. Metal halide seems to be used more frequently now. High
pressure sodium tends to not give you a natural color, a natural light. When people go out looking
for their cars, you don’t see the color of your car. So it’s a little bit different on the eyes kind of
thing, whereas the metal halides give them more natural features. With the employment of cut off
fixtures, you do get your light straight down, and that benefits the light wash, like I said, much like
what you have out here in your parking lot. It would be very similar to what you see out there.
MR. VOLLARO-Although you’ll have a lot more lighting on this site than there is on this building, I
believe.
MR. FAZEO-No. Like I pointed out, we brought the light meter out. If you stand under one of the
light poles, it’s the same light intensity as these poles are, on the site, the same levels of lights. So
when you walk out and see the level of lights, you look across the whole parking lot, you’ll see how
the appearance would be. To me, it’s not that bright. It’s adequate, but it’s not that bright.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s just a recommendation that I would make, that you soften the light,
only because of where this piece sits out in the open there. It’s going to be like a candle in a dark
room. That’s a pretty.
MR. ABBOTT-Chazen makes the same recommendation.
MR. FAZEO-Yes. Chazen was making the recommendation based on draft, I guess requirements
that aren’t adopted yet. We did try to follow them the best we could.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, when I looked at Chazen’s comments, and he said, we recommend the
plans be revised to bring them more closely into compliance with the guidelines, I put a note on that
that said, no, because knowing what municipalities are like, and bureaucracies are like, I’m not sure
that their guidelines are going to be cast in stone. I mean, they could change. So I’d just as soon, I’m
using them as a guide, but possibly not saying that we’re going to stick to those guidelines, not until
they become, in my opinion anyway, until they become Town requirements. I think he also said the
plans do a good job of minimizing spillage from the site, and I think they do as well. So I don’t
know. It’s kind of a toss up. I know the difference between the two. I’ve seen the two myself, and
that’s just where I’m coming from on that particular point. So I’ll let that rest until somebody else
gets up on it. Looking at the spaces, I noticed that really what you have is 70 required spaces. This is
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
on your drawing. It’s on the one that’s stamped in May 10, SP Sheet 1 of 5. We talk about 70 spaces
being required, yet we’ve got roughly 54 extra spaces on this drawing. You’ve got 124, it looks like.
MR. FAZEO-Yes, I believe you resolved this at the last meeting, and I came to this meeting not
thinking parking spaces were still an issue. We did explain that at several meetings what the parking
is.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m, where did we sit at that? Were we going to stay at 124? Is that where
we were?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FAZEO-I could point out, too, obviously, like we addressed at that meeting, most of the
parking would be in the front for this facility. It’s not like the entire parking lot will be filled every
single time, but you’ll see a lot of cars. For example, as you look at the entrance, as you come down
the entrance driveway, you would make a right turn to go to the back of the Church, all those parking
spaces to your right probably would never be used until there’s an overflow kind of situation. So I
would tend to think most of the time you’ll just see cars just in the front there. You won’t see them
all along the side of the road there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There was one other comment about your distance from Dream Lake Road
to the entrance on Bay, and I sized it off at 230 feet. I think that’s plenty. I don’t think there’s any
back up problem there of making the right turn in, because with all those parking spaces, you’ll have
plenty of room to, cars won’t be looking for places to park. That’s for darn sure, and that’s all I have
on that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Last time we talked about, my concern was lighting the entryways, just as the
building was going to be used for educational purposes, and nursery care purposes, and that I did see
in the literature that there is an occlusion of 75 watt surface mounted fixtures, but it doesn’t show up
here. Is that because of the program?
MR. FAZEO-Yes. That would be put on when the actual building gets designed, and like I said, I
think those type of fixtures, the candescent light bulbs, they’re the typical fixtures that you would
have on your front door of your house. It lights the immediate maybe six or eight foot area away
from the doorway, and it really wouldn’t have much impact on the lighting levels on this anyway.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and one other quick question. None of my plans show the exterior surface
mounted light fixtures. It’s in the literature, but I don’t see it in any of the plans.
MR. FAZEO-Right. Basically the drawings right now are schematic, and we’re not really, we haven’t
set in stone where all the doorways are at this point, but most of the doorways, I think, would have a,
the fixtures mounted next to the doors, and that would be it. There’s no plans to put any floodlights
or anything on the building to shine down on the parking lots.
MR. STROUGH-Well, my concern from last time, if you’ll remember, was that there be ample
lighting near the entrance.
MR. FAZEO-Yes. Right. That’s why if you’ll notice on the entrance, where the playground area is
on the left, going to the left, there’s a little nook in there. We actually put a third fixture in there. It’s
an ornamental fixture. Said if it is nighttime and people coming out of the daycare area, there’s
actually a little small light bulb on a 12 foot pole there with a decorative ornamental kind of fixture,
for that purpose, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This is just for Staff, a point of order. Our agenda says March 21 was the
st
public hearing on it? They were not on the March 21 agenda. They were on the March 28
stth
agenda, and the public hearing was left open. Is that your understanding it was left open?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the only other question I guess I had for you, and it’s just a curious
question. What’s an area way? It’s noted three times on your drawing, and I’m scratching my head
trying to figure out what it is, right up next to the building.
MR. FAZEO-On both sides?
MR. MAC EWAN-On both sides of it.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
MR. FAZEO-Okay. Well, what it is, is there’s. It’s these little two strips you’re talking about right
here?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. FAZEO-Those are entrances that come out. The building, the front level is at one elevation,
the ground on both sides slopes down rather sharply, so that you have a larger ravine on the back of
the building versus the front. So that when you come out there’s like a retaining wall on both sides
of this. This is when you come out, there’s a door on the lower level that you actually come out into,
inside, there’s like a retaining wall on there. It’s not like a storage area. It’s more like a walkway. As
you look at the building, there’ll be like a retaining wall that actually gradually goes down and meets
the grade into the back of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that like a path that one would walk on, or is it just kind of like to separate, to
reveal the building as it goes along the slope?
MR. FAZEO-It just actually, as you come out the door, you’d come out and there’d be a retaining
wall, and you’d take a right turn, and you’d walk out from the building. It’s basically a sidewalk.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. GODDERT-Basically it allows us having entrances and exits for fire purposes and it also gives
us windows in that area. So on both sides of the building there’ll be these little areas.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Super. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from Board
members?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have one, I guess it’s for Staff mostly. On the Site Development Data, if
you take a look at that for a second. It’s 752,728 square feet is the parcel area, and the total
nonpermeable is 65,107. I think what we’re looking for is percent non-permeable, it’s very, very
small on that lot. It’s about .086. It’s not 91.4.
MRS. MOORE-It was switched.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s just got to be switched around, and the second thing is that the checklist was
never filled out, at least it’s not on mine.
MRS. MOORE-Staff goes through that checklist and determines what items are on that list, at the
Staff review, you know, it’s helpful if the applicant does put checks in the boxes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’ve been through this with them. It’s just that it’s not filled out, is
that what you’re telling me? Okay. Because if this goes into the file a year from now and somebody
takes a look at this and says, gee, they never filled out, you know, this checklist, it really should be
filled out if it’s going to be part of the record, it seems to me. That’s all.
MRS. MOORE-If you look at it it says, or include all required information on your plot plan. It’s
not required to be filled out. It’s always helpful.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, maybe that’s a point we could discuss later, and maybe this
document doesn’t need to be submitted with our packets. If you do this review, I usually check that
to see that all the stuff is checked off.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? We left the public hearing open. Does
anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. I guess it’s the Short Form, too. Isn’t it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2000, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Alan Abbott:
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 25 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2000 BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 15-2000 Bay Road Presbyterian
Church for a new 20,000 sq. ft. church, classroom and meeting room with associated parking and
utilities, Tax Map No. 51-1-35.1/Cross Reference AV 16-2000, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 1/26/00 consists of the following:
1. Transmittal from M. Lupe of Application, Stormwater Analysis Summary, Deed, and maps
SP (Site Layout/Landscaping Plan), SL (Site Lighting Plan), SG (Site Grading/Utility Plan),
DET (Site Details), ELEV (Building Elevation Plan) dated 1/24/00
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 5/25/00 Staff Notes
2. 5/10/00 C.T. Male Assoc. revised info – letter w/map SP revised 5/10/00
3. 5/9/00 RFA comments – Final sign off
4. 5/8/00 Chazen Review review of lighting plan
5. 5/4/00 Meeting Notice
6. 5/3/00 M. Lupe from L. Moore forwarding 3/28/00 PB resolution
7. 5/2/00 F. Fazio from M. Ryba – alternate plan
8. 4/24/00 S. Mesinger from L. Moore – Transmittal of lighting info for
review
9. 4/21/00 L. Moore from F. Fazio – revised lighting plans
10. 3/29/00 S. Mesinger from M. Ryba – Transmittal of Lighting Plan for
review
11. 3/29/00 F. Fazio from Staff – PB resolution, and request for catalog sheets
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
for lighting
12. 3/28/00 Planning Bd. Resolution – Tabled
13. 3/28/00 Rist Frost comments
14. 3/28/00 Staff Notes w/RFA comments of 3/20/00, Beaut. Comm.
comments of 3/6/00
15. 3/24/00 L. Moore from F. Fazio (CT Male) – revised info (letter, maps,
stormwater man. report) addressing Staff and RFA comments
16. 3/24/00 Fax, L. Moore from M. Lupe – staff notes
17. 3/21/00 L. Moore from C. Jones, Fire Marshal
18. 3/20/00 RFA comments
19. 3/6/00 Beaut. Comm. comments
20. 3/3/00 L. Moore from F. Fazio – revised plans and reports addressing comments
of RFA, Staff notes and comments received at 2/22 PB mtg.
21. 3/3/00 revised Info – Stormwater Man. Report and maps (SP, SL, SU, SG, DET
revised 3/3/00)
22. 3/2/00 Meeting Notice letter
23. 2/25/00 Fax to M. Lupe from L. Moore addressing submission of
information
24. 2/22/00 Planning Bd. Resolution – Tabled
25. 2/22/00 Fax to M. Lupe from Planning Office – staff notes
26. 2/22/00 RFA comments
27. 2/22/00 Staff Notes w/ZBA resolution of 2/16/00
28. 2/17/00 M. Ryba from M. Lupe re: storm drain. regulations, foot candle,
and building lighting
29. 2/15/00 Notice of Public Hearing
30. 2/4/00 Meeting Notice
31. Undated Pictures taken by staff
32. 2/3/00 L. Moore from M. Lupe – Addt’l. copies
33. 2/3/00 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation – Default approval due
to lack of quorum
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/22/00, 3/28/00, 5/25/00 concerning the above project;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, all landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved as per resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 2000 by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to ask a question during that, whether or not we would consider
changing off to the sodium lamps or not. I mean, if we don’t, why we’ll just leave it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m comfortable with the lighting that’s proposed.
MR. VOLLARO-The Halide? Okay. Fine.
MR. ABBOTT-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. FAZEO-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED PIZZA HUT OWNER: PIZZAGATES
RESTAURANTS, INC. AGENT: WILLIAM MAHER LOCATION: 97 & 99 MAIN
STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALTER THE EXISTING PIZZA HUT SITE TO
CONSTRUCT A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE
PAVEMENT OF DRIVE-THRU AREA, REMOVAL OF TWO PARK STALLS AND
REMOVAL OF SOME GREEN AREA. A DRIVE-THRU AREA WAS DETAILED IN
THE 1987 PLANS FOR THE RESTAURANT BUT WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED DUE
TO STATE LIQUOR REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE SINCE CHANGED.
CONSTRUCTION OF SITE AMENITIES AS PROPOSED REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1255 (5/20/87), BP 87-
679 (10/97) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/00 TAX MAP NO. 129-1-21 LOT SIZE:
0.77 ACRES SECTION: 179-15
TERRY RYFA & BILL MAHER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-2000, Pizza Hut, Meeting Date May 25, 2000 “ Staff Notes:
The applicant proposes to construct a drive-thru on the west side of the existing Pizza Hut
restaurant. The alteration to the site includes removal of 480 +\- square feet of green area, removal
of two parking spaces, and interior alterations to install the window. The enhancement as proposed
requires site plan review and approval in the Commercial Residential 15,000 square feet zone. The
Pizza Hut restaurant was an approved use in May 20, 1987 and was constructed in 1988. The
original plans identify a drive-thru location. The drive thru was not constructed due to a liquor
license issue; that issue has been resolved and the applicant would like to construct the drive thru as
proposed. The applicant has also applied for an area variance requesting relief from the permeability
requirements. There are no other exterior changes to the site. The Board may request information
about hours of operation of the window or if a loud speaker will be used for ordering. Staff
requested the applicant review any potential traffic conflicts with the drive-thru. The applicant
explained that the volume of traffic would most likely not increase due to the existing take-out
service available on the site. The drive-thru may assist with internal traffic circulation since fewer
people will need to park to pick up pizza for home consumption. Staff would suggest the Planning
Board consider the following during their review of the site plan: the final plans identify all signs for
the drive-thru, such as directional and ordering signs.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record.
MR. RYFA-Terry Ryfa from Pizza Hut.
MR. MAHER-William Maher from Pizza Hut.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your proposed project?
MR. RYFA-Well, what we did is back in 1987, we had a plan approved by the Town, and we went
before the Liquor Authority at the time, and they told us that we could not have open container beer
being sold in the restaurant and a drive thru window at the same time. So we had to nix those plans
on the drive thru. Since then I noticed that a Pizza Hut down in Albany had, actually in Troy, had
put a drive thru in. So I questioned the Liquor Authority about it, and they told us that the indeed
we would be able to now. I wasn’t clear whether the law was changed or whether we were just told
incorrect information, but anyway, it is legal for us to do it now. Before we actually do it, we have to
get approval from the Town, and then take this to the Liquor Authority, and they would then allow
us to do it. What we simply did, we didn’t hire an engineer. We pretty much took the plan that we’d
had before and drew in what is there now, and we highlighted in yellow what is there now, but this
plan was approved by a site plan back in 1987, without that yellowed in part. So what we want to do
is put a, just open up the drive through, pave that area there, and have cars come through and pick
up their pizzas. We’re not going to have people ordering at an order board. It’s only going to be for
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
carry out customers. So if a carry out customer calls in and orders a pizza, we would then tell them
that the drive through is now available for them to pick it up, and they would just drive through, and
pay and get their pizza. It’s being done quite a bit throughout Pizza Hut now with a lot of success.
One thing it’s doing is eliminating some of the congestion at the doorway, because people tend not
to park in the parking stalls to go get their pizza. They park in front of the door and tend to block
that area, and create more of a traffic issue. So, we’re feeling pretty confident that it will eliminate
some of the congestion problems in the doorway area, and that is our plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see any questions at all. I have no question with them.
MR. RINGER-No. How do you educate your customers that that drive through is only for picking
up and not for ordering?
MR. RYFA-Yes, I mean, there’s probably going to be some confusion, I’m sure, but the advantage
we have is people call in and carry out pizzas. So the people who call in for a carry out, we can
educate them fairly easily.
MR. RINGER-I understand that. It’s the ones that see a drive through, how would they know?
MR. RYFA-Yes. I haven’t been in a situation, and I haven’t asked that question, but I’m sure that it’s
happened. I’ve gone and visited other ones in other areas, but I’m sure that it’s happened. People
have probably driven up there, thought that they were going to be able to place an order, get a pizza
and drive away, but what we would do is just push them, have them go beyond, you know, tell them.
MR. RINGER-I was trying to figure if that’s going to create more problems there.
MR. RYFA-Well, they wouldn’t be waiting very long, because if they didn’t see an order taking area,
I’m sure they’d pull up to the window, we’d tell them you can’t order. So they’d drive on. I wouldn’t
think there’d be a long line for that actually taking place.
MR. VOLLARO-You probably have a pretty good recurring clientele now, don’t you?
MR. RYFA-We do.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they would kind of know, most of the people that come to your place
know that they’ve got to go inside and order a pizza, or call up on the phone and come through this
and pick it up.
MR. RYFA-Exactly.
MR. RINGER-Yes. It was just a question in my mind, how people would know the difference.
MR. STROUGH-A couple of things. The parking spaces, the number. In the front, there’s only
two. There’s not three there, in the southern end, on the southern most parking area. Do you see
where you’ve got three?
MR. RYFA-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-There’s only two there.
MR. RYFA-Okay. I was not aware of that.
MR. MAHER-That was changed. What happened was they wound up being too narrow, they made
the curb cut. That should have been changed on there. I’m sorry.
MR. STROUGH-And then in back, I counted up your parking spaces, and in back you have seven
on the south side closest to the building, and there’s only six spots there, but in any event, you have
ample parking.
MR. RYFA-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So this is getting to my point. I drove around, and I have a rather large vehicle. So
I might suggest, those in pink, that you eliminate two of those parking spots because I found it very
difficult to turn in as I was entering. If there was a car parked there, and with the minimum amount
of space you have here on the west side, I would almost suggest that you actually re-stripe or actually
take out that one parking space, because you have more than what the Code asks for. So you have
ample parking.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
MR. RYFA-In fact, Bill was talking about doing that. Because it would be awful tight in there for us
to be able to pull a car through.
MR. STROUGH-When I drove around, and then when I tried to picture myself exiting, there isn’t a
whole lot of space between the parking area here and here. I would take out the parking spot that’s
right next to the two that you’ve already taken out. Because in order to get that turning radius in, I
would suggest that you eliminate the striping of that as a parking area.
MR. RYFA-Yes, as long as that, if it impedes it. Is that a suggestion, or would we have the ability to
look at that and decide?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think you’ll come to that conclusion on your own. Okay. I don’t know if
we want to make it a condition, but it’s a suggestion on my behalf.
MR. MAC EWAN-If they remove those two stalls, those two parking spots, would they still meet the
requirement for parking on the site?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, they do.
MRS. MOORE-As far as I know. I’m sorry, I don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-The two parking spots he’s referring to, John’s suggestion, if they remove those,
are they still meeting the requirements of the site, with enough parking?
MR. RYFA-I don’t know if I can answer that for you. It is one per one hundred square feet, and we
have 2800 square feet. We need 28 spots.
MR. STROUGH-And even after you eliminate those two, it will be 38 parking spots, 10 more than
they need to meet Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right.
MR. STROUGH-The only other thing is, right next to your drive in is there’s that broken drain.
What are you going to do with that? The roof drain, there’s a PVC pipe that’s busted. You have a
little splash mounting up against the wall.
MR. RYFA-That is going to be repaired and brought back down. That cracked from ice that backed
up and split on us over the winter.
MR. STROUGH-Cars driving through during a rain, it looked like it could be.
MR. RYFA-Yes. We just weren’t sure what was going on with it yet, as to whether we had to take it
down into the grassed area or just take it out into the drive through, and drain.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you’re going to take it into the ground?
MR. RYFA-Into the ground.
MR. STROUGH-And you’re going to make some kind of a, well, what do we do for drains off the
roof when they go directly into the ground? Don’t they have to have something?
MR. RYFA-It just comes down and goes onto a splash thing.
MR. STROUGH-That’ll be right in the way of your drive through.
MR. RYFA-It can come right down, there’s actually a curb area where it comes down into, and it
would just stay there. That’s where it’s always been over the years.
MR. STROUGH-And what you have called plantings out in the back, you have your garbage bins on
that. That’s not plantings.
MR. RYFA-They’ve been moved, just because we had somebody run into them. So we had them
put up on that bark chipped area, just a public safety, I guess, because people kept smashing into
them, but we can put them back on the paved area.
MR. STROUGH-It’s all right with me. I don’t know if that’s what the original plans called for.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
MR. RYFA-The original plan had them back where the storage shed is. It had an enclosed area that
when it was built, it was too small to ever hold any sized dumpster, maybe. So we had to move them
at that point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines, the storage shed was the original location where you stored
your refuse?
MR. RYFA-Yes. Well, it never wound up going there because it couldn’t fit. The plan originally
called for something so small that nothing could fit in there. Nowadays you have to have two
dumpsters, one for cardboard recyclables. So it wouldn’t have worked anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Code requires that they be screened with fencing around them. Right?
MRS. MOORE-Even if it’s hidden from public, a public right-of-way?
MR. RYFA-That’s what I thought, that it had to be hidden from public, if there was natural
screening or building screening, from public view.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it says in here receptacle is not visible from a public right-of-way. Is Staff
satisfied with that? Anything else? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members before we do the
SEQRA? Short Form, Laura.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 36-20000, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Alan Abbott:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
PIZZA HUT, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 25 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-I like your idea about the two parking stalls. We like the idea of the two parking
stalls being eliminated. It makes it a little bit easier movement on your site.
MR. RINGER-That’s a good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Which two are they?
MR. MAC EWAN-This one here, and that one there. I don’t know how you want to delineate them.
Unless we could.
MRS. MOORE-You could have him sign John’s map.
MR. MAC EWAN-John’s map.
MRS. MOORE-Sign and date that map, as of today.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s the easy way to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-Does that signing have to be part of the motion?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just note that it’s a site plan map signed and dated today, today’s date. Do you
want to do the motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2000 PIZZA HUT, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 36-2000, Pizza Hut to alter the
existing Pizza Hut to construct a drive-thru window. Site improvements include pavement of drive-
thru area, removal of two parking stalls and removal of some green area. A drive-thru area was
detailed in the 1987 plans for the restaurant but was not constructed due to State Liquor regulations
which have since changed. Construction of site amenities as proposed require Planning Board
review and approval, Tax Map No. 129-1-21/Cross Reference AV 42-2000, UV 1255, BP 87-679,
and;
WHEREAS, the application received 4/8/00 consists of the following:
1. Letter to PB from W. Maher w/application, site plan dated 4/2/00
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 5/20/87 ZBA minutes from Use Variance 1255
2. 5/4/00 Meeting Notice
3. 5/10/00 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation – No County Impact
4. 5/17/00 ZBA resolution - approved
5. 5/18/00 Notice of Public Hearing
6. 5/25/00 Staff Notes
7. 5/25/00 Map received signed by T. Ryfa showing elimination of two
parking spaces, etc.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 5/25/00 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/25/00)
WHEREAS, all landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff with the addition:
a. The applicant sign a site plan map dated 4/2/00, drawn by William Maher
and the signing would be dated 5/25/00 to highlight the elimination of two
additional parking spots.
Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, you’re all set. Good luck.
MR. RYFA-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-In closing, our regular meetings are going to be on the 20 and the 27 next
thth
month. So what’s everyone’s pleasure for site visits?
MR. VOLLARO-Saturday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Saturday? I’ve got one Saturday. Doable? Site visits are Saturday the 17, 9:00
th
a.m. If we should need a third meeting this month, which we don’t know yet, can we kind of
designate that the 22 will be that additional vote, as a recommendation, and calling Counsel, to
nd
make sure that Counsel is available. Okay. Any other issues, items? I’ll move for adjournment.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
26